Guest Post: The Plan Is Not Working

You didn’t want to be the guy chosen to tell Stalin that the wheat crop failed or the production quotas on trucks and cars were not met. Why?

Because despots always blame people, not systems.

In the same way, you don’t want to be the guy chosen to tell Obama that his health care websites are a disaster. But that’s what they are, and he’s managed to blame everyone but himself.

At his hilarious and embarrassing press conference on Monday, the president first assured us that “no one is madder than me” about website failures. Then, of course, he lashed out at the critics and implicitly blamed them for technical failures.

“It’s time for folks to stop rooting for its failure, because hardworking, middle-class families are rooting for its success.”

Someone needs to explain to this guy that rooting one way or another does not cause a website to fail. Crop failures in Russia were not because of the enemies of communism, and the failure of Obama’s health care websites are not due to his political enemies, either. The problem is that government is a bad developer, even when it’s contracting out.

Then Obama said, “We did not wage this long and contentious battle just around a website. That’s not what this was about.”

There he goes again, defining his own reality. By plunging into direct provision of a commercial service and forcing people to cough up for it, Obamacare and its website must be prepared to be accessed just like any other private market service.

People don’t like it when websites are flaky and do not perform. By dismissing this feature — treating the website as if it is just a luxury feature that has nothing to do with the program itself — he reveals that he’s stuck in the past.

A website is not just a convenience. It is the heart and soul of a service that purports to serve everyone. In some ways, this is the most important website this government has ever produced. People don’t use the sites of the Pentagon or Housing and Urban Development. But this one people not only use, but are forced to use. Its failure is epic.

The president then made matters worse. He pointed out that people can download a form and mail it in. Also that people can go to centers where there are people who can help. Then he even rattled off an 800 number that people could call.

As The New York Times said with a funny blandness: “Several calls to the number immediately after he read it produced busy signals.”

Busy signals? I think the last time I heard one of those I was in seventh grade. No one under the age of 25 even knows what a “busy signal” is.

The terrifying thing is that all the troubles with HealthCare.gov foreshadow what’s coming with the new system of health care. Who can doubt it? It is going to be thrown back, inefficient, backward-looking, full of bureaucracy, insanely expensive, characterized by busy signals, and ultimately ending with a demand to come back another day.

Let’s talk about expenses. The website Digital Trends estimates costs between $500 million and perhaps as much as $2 billion before the end of 2014 just to operate the website. This is, quite frankly, unthinkably absurd:

“Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $500 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million.”

In short, this stuff redefines the word “boondoggle.” And it’s not like the typical Pentagon scandal because, again, this is a regular commercial webspace. Every business in America builds websites. The big difference is they do it with their own money. People know how much sites cost and how they are supposed to operate. That’s why this government website failure is so significant.

It is worth asking why a government with half a billion dollars and vast amounts of time and personnel to make a great site can’t actually manage to do it. It’s not as if the government didn’t have the incentive to do it right. The most powerful people on Earth wanted it to succeed — and in this respect, there is no question that Obama is telling truth. He really did wish upon a star.

The problem is that government is not the best means to do anything well. The problem is the absence of two crucial things: the knowledge to assemble the resources properly and the means to make the economic assessment of the value of competitive resources. This is what happens when you eliminate the profit-and-loss system. You can throw massive resources at a problem with the end result being disappointing.You didn’t want to be the guy chosen to tell Stalin that the wheat crop failed or the production quotas on trucks and cars were not met. Why?

Because despots always blame people, not systems.

In the same way, you don’t want to be the guy chosen to tell Obama that his health care websites are a disaster. But that’s what they are, and he’s managed to blame everyone but himself.

At his hilarious and embarrassing press conference on Monday, the president first assured us that “no one is madder than me” about website failures. Then, of course, he lashed out at the critics and implicitly blamed them for technical failures.

“It’s time for folks to stop rooting for its failure, because hardworking, middle-class families are rooting for its success.”

Someone needs to explain to this guy that rooting one way or another does not cause a website to fail. Crop failures in Russia were not because of the enemies of communism, and the failure of Obama’s health care websites are not due to his political enemies, either. The problem is that government is a bad developer, even when it’s contracting out.

Then Obama said, “We did not wage this long and contentious battle just around a website. That’s not what this was about.”

There he goes again, defining his own reality. By plunging into direct provision of a commercial service and forcing people to cough up for it, Obamacare and its website must be prepared to be accessed just like any other private market service.

People don’t like it when websites are flaky and do not perform. By dismissing this feature — treating the website as if it is just a luxury feature that has nothing to do with the program itself — he reveals that he’s stuck in the past.

A website is not just a convenience. It is the heart and soul of a service that purports to serve everyone. In some ways, this is the most important website this government has ever produced. People don’t use the sites of the Pentagon or Housing and Urban Development. But this one people not only use, but are forced to use. Its failure is epic.

The president then made matters worse. He pointed out that people can download a form and mail it in. Also that people can go to centers where there are people who can help. Then he even rattled off an 800 number that people could call.

As The New York Times said with a funny blandness: “Several calls to the number immediately after he read it produced busy signals.”

Busy signals? I think the last time I heard one of those I was in seventh grade. No one under the age of 25 even knows what a “busy signal” is.

The terrifying thing is that all the troubles with HealthCare.gov foreshadow what’s coming with the new system of health care. Who can doubt it? It is going to be thrown back, inefficient, backward-looking, full of bureaucracy, insanely expensive, characterized by busy signals, and ultimately ending with a demand to come back another day.

Let’s talk about expenses. The website Digital Trends estimates costs between $500 million and perhaps as much as $2 billion before the end of 2014 just to operate the website. This is, quite frankly, unthinkably absurd:

“Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $500 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million.”

In short, this stuff redefines the word “boondoggle.” And it’s not like the typical Pentagon scandal because, again, this is a regular commercial webspace. Every business in America builds websites. The big difference is they do it with their own money. People know how much sites cost and how they are supposed to operate. That’s why this government website failure is so significant.

It is worth asking why a government with half a billion dollars and vast amounts of time and personnel to make a great site can’t actually manage to do it. It’s not as if the government didn’t have the incentive to do it right. The most powerful people on Earth wanted it to succeed — and in this respect, there is no question that Obama is telling truth. He really did wish upon a star.

The problem is that government is not the best means to do anything well. The problem is the absence of two crucial things: the knowledge to assemble the resources properly and the means to make the economic assessment of the value of competitive resources. This is what happens when you eliminate the profit-and-loss system. You can throw massive resources at a problem with the end result being disappointing.

Again, it is not just about the website. It is about the whole system. The fools who imposed this system had all the expertise, all the arrogance, all the money, and all the power, and they still couldn’t do it. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of workable and useful websites go up every day.

Has there ever been in our times a better symbol of the failure of government? The truth is this: Government doesn’t work. Here’s the proof. It’s just the beginning. If you want health care in the future, you are going to have to look outside the system. And plenty of people right now are working on that solution, which, unlike that which the experts create, will actually serve human needs. The fools who imposed this system had all the expertise, all the arrogance, all the money, and all the power, and they still couldn’t do it. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of workable and useful websites go up every day.

A shocking new report released today by the Federal Security Service (FSB) states that as many as 5 million Americans have been “disappeared” by the Obama regime during the past 4 ½ years and are presumed to be dead in the worst incident of mass genocide since the Cultural Revolution that took place in the People's Republic of China from 1966 to 1976 and claimed upwards of 20 million lives.

According to this report, a “gravely concerning statistical anomaly” in American death and missing persons records between the years of 2009-2013 was recently brought to the FSB’s attention by noted historian Boris Borisov who in 2008 revealed in his “American Holodomor” research paper that a similar genocide of these peoples took place during the Great Depression where upwards of 7 million of them were, likewise, killed.

68,000 American men, and 8 women died there. Almost everyone in the country knew someone who died in Nam. If an order of magnitude plus folks had already been "disappeared" there would be more evidence than hair ball conspiracy theory. Some of this swill does us no honor.

He should have blamed the private contractors that were hired and pointed out that it is just one more way that the private sector has failed the American people. And that Eric Holder will be prosecuting them for inappropriate use of public funds. Once he's done investigating himself, of course.

I think that would be more in line with how he really thinks anyway. It would be good for him to just get it off his chest every now and then and speak his mind.

The website (and its failure) is nothing more that the distraction of the month from a host of other, bigger problems. A F'ing waste of breath that has expanded to fill nearly every minute of the MSM news reports. Well done, Barry.

The plan IS working, you just need to look at it from the right angle.

First Rule of Bankruptcy: When faced with certain Bankruptcy and subsequent Liquidation of assets, transfer all good assets and equity into a newly created entity, and hang the creditors with the toxic assets and debt of the old.

Obama could nominate Dick Cheney for Sec of Defense and true believers would support it. "Well, he has experience...and he can talk to Congress...it could be a good choice." Ideology makes "people of color" overwhelmingly support the candidate who gave them the worst economic drubbing in history. It makes the takers turn out en masse on Election Day. It makes journalists pen puff pieces excusing the obvious empty suit in the Oval Office while failing to report any negative news. Has critical thinking vanished?

Critical thinking is, indeed, vanishing. When you have decades of public schools and ideologic ivy league Universities downloading Marxist mush, and a complicit main stream media, you get Obama. This is tragic, in that, people that are weak and vurneable not having critical thinking skills and because they haven't any realized identity (not self acutalized) they will cling to other peoples images rather than their own basic freedoms.

There is nothing worse than people willing to prostitute themselves out to a historically failed ideological belief such as Statism (Marxism) that always ends in dictatorship and destruction.

The whole world is collapsing under Marxist unrestrained beliefs, while the idiot in the Whitehouse creats even more Socialistic policy, such as Obamacare. The residue of this insanity is causing economic and societal decay as we are witnessing.

Here's one for you. Check out what Diane Feinstein is trying to pass, which makes the Stasi of Nazi Germany look like a meek policing force:

Feinstein and other politicians like her have it in their mind that they know better, when in reality what they are really doing is subjugating any vestige of Constitutional freedoms we have left. It's all about power, control and hunting down revenue for an unsustainable government parasitic largess. Quit frankly, these people are beyond contempt and pathological in their pursuit of having everyone under their Statist thumb. What's ironic is Feinstein is a Jew and it would appear she didn't learn a damn thing about the horrors of Nazi Germany and what they did to her own people! It is also ironic that she is an advocate of gun control, just another stab in the heart of our Great Constitution and an attempt to set her own people up to be slaves under the State! These are people that are agasp at allowing any individual to think for themselves. We are like ants to them, that need to be manipulated and controlled.

+1 from me, grunt. IMHO, Feinstein and her ilk know exactly what they're doing. She wants to avenge the crimes of Hitler. Her own constituency boos her at "town hall meetings", which begs a question for another thread.

Hitler decided that if the Jews wouldn't self-identify their criminals, he'd just kill them all, and let God sort 'em out. Napoleon went rogue, too, so most everyone thinks he was a despot.

Dianne is not setting up "her own people" to be slaves under the state, though. Zionism (money) knows no country, Feinstein's "people" are not necessarily residents of California

I read the "American Holodomor" paper. It was a crock of shit. This is clearly another. His numbers are like the "missing children" numbers in the 90s. You need to take off a zero to pass the laugh test. After which you can still be confident that you have a greatest upper bound.

Um, the problem with the rollout, of course, is that millions CANNOT enroll due to the many excellent and accurate points made in the article above, Your Aim-Too-Lowness, Bhar'aqh Hussein.

(This will fail. Spectacularly. Maybe even split the country even more, cause violence and mayhem along with fucking up the best health care delivery system the world has ever known. But these idiots will be back. Maybe 5 years, maybe 10, but they'll be back. With another one-size-fits-all, taxpayer funded YallDoDis Health Care For Me.)

Perhaps directing bucket loads of money to friends, as done here, is what Obama meant by "spreading the wealth around". So he gave a no-bid contract to a Canadian firm that had other spectacular failures in their history. So what? So they used free open source software in their project but went to the trouble of stripping out the copyright information. So what? Fascism/cronyism at its finest.

Yes, the truth is black and white and simple and easy and requires no complex thought. The truth most certainly is not that government does some things well and other things terribly, so let's just put on our ideological blinders and go back to the good old days where there was no government and everyone played on a level playing field, there were no kings or lords or oligarchs, there was no forced tribute to the king or the church, etc. We all know that Jamie Dimon will behave or magically disappear if we get rid of the government.

It would certainly suck to have an adult debate about how Obamacare sucks because it was written by private insurance companies and giant healthcare corporations who sought to profit from it, and how government occasionally does great things like build airports and interstates to facilitate commerce.

The state does not produce anything of value. EVER. It only transfers wealth from those who produce and hands it over to the top (looters) and also to the bottom who can vote them to stay in power (moochers).

Oh, and BTW, the building of airports, dams, and all major infrastructure is also outsourced to private giant multinational corporations.

Simple is as simple does. Is the Constitution (a document forming a government) worthless and of no value? How about public courthouses where private disputes can be resolved? Never mind. I am arguing with someone who sees the world in pure black and white. Color is so much more interesting, such as understanding that the outsourcing of public works to private companies is (or can be) one of the things government does well. You don't see the private companies building dams on their own, do you? Collectivism includes pooling resources to build things that facilitate free commerce, using private companies to do it.

It seems you are incapable of understanding basic facts. But then again the ancient adage "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" directly applies to statists like the one who glares back at you every single time you glance into a mirror.

And to answer your inquiry into the value of the Constitution, just take a look at how much your beloved government values and respects it. It is up to the people to uphold its value against the relentless assault of the state, whose only aim is to enslave the individual.

Funny how it always falls back to platitudes with the simple-minded who see things in such stark absolutes.

If believing in the Constitution makes me a statist (it does, since the Constitution by definition recognizes the value of an elected government or state), then you either believe it is a worthless document or you don't know what it stands for. I suspect it is the latter and that you simply chose to hold on to simple values because that is all you can understand. It's okay, really. That is why you cannot explain your broad statements such as that airports funded by the collective will of the People add no value to society.

Funny how the simple minded fall back on insults, rather than make a coherent argument. The Constitution outlines and defines the structure of the State, not its' value. You suspect the latter? Why? To reinforce a weak argument? What is wrong with simple values? Are not the ten comandments simple values? Is not the golden rule a simple value?

If airports added value to a society, someone would build them. Do ALL airports add value? And of course, we should also ask, can we afford to add the value? Building a death star would add value for someone, not sure it is a good social investment. Is that too simple a value for you?

It is not an insult to call your line of thinking simplistic. It is a correct observation. Your response above demonstrates as much. You are telling me that the Constituion nowhere in its four corners outlines or identifies the value of the State? How about the first few lines:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Etc.

No, I didn't say that, I said it defines its' structure. Did you read Article 1 section 1? The preamble states a set of values, attributed to "the People". A preamble is that which comes before. The preamble has no power of law and a Constitution is above all- a social contract.

Readng the Constitution is great, but it is more important to understand it, including its' limitations. I suggest you work on that.

So when I use your own words against you, you just pivot and change the argument. Your words are right there to be read and I did not take them out of context or change them. You are arguing with yourself and attempting to fit the facts to your worldview rather than adopting a worldview supported by facts. Carry on.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

And...the federal Senate members are supposed to be appointed by the individual states' legislatures to represent the state of Florida's (in my case) interests. It addresses the nature of what it was supposed to be (dual sovereignty, individual state governments & one federal government)...thats not what it is now.

Now, it is popularly elected by bleating sheep clamoring for moar freeeee shit.

I think that was a very important step in the wrong dirrection when that change was made. not many people realize the difference though. and surprise surprise, it was inacted in 1913, right around the creation of the federal reserve and the income tax was created. not 1 person in a thousand knows any of this. Thanks dept of edumacation public schools!!!

Populism and "democracy" can be used against the best interests of any & all societies. A despotic state govenor & his corrupt elected officials (and cronies) are used as the excuse for "change" and sold to an outraged populace to strip away the very protections of their own "collective" individual sovereignty.

Until, one day, we awake to Vichy DC making "laws" so intensly personal to all individuals, that the "law" must carry a fine, collected by the central government of course, for non-compliance...for our own good.

Hey man (I assume), I have studied your words and often thought you a kindred spirit, actually always. You had a stalker who insisted on calling you Newman awhile back. Dunno what happened to that one- good riddance.

NE way, it just occured to me that nmewn may just be shorthand for "enemy within". Either way, glad to know ya'!

I don't know what happened to my stalker(s)...maybe the weight of evidence that we provide became overwhelming...lol.

You are correct in your assumptions, we are both kindred spririts, I am (now) 54-Libra, a male and the name is in fact, shorthand for enemy within.

It was something introspective (the on-line name) at first...unconnected outwardly but over time, I discovered it was something everyone could attach their own intuitions or prejudices to...for their own purposes or paranoia, I have been called (a shill, a government worker(lol)/oil man/rabid republican/rabbi/rich/misogynist/racist/uncaring...you name it)...and that is just lovely with me because its all false.

Lucky guess, I suppose. Kindred spirits indeed, we are. As long as we're baring our souls, I'm 56, Virgo, male and my moniker loosely translates to "asshole". My avatar used to be question marks. I soon realized that everyone else here is as clueless as I am.

I look around for the people I used to turn to to pull me through,

Looking into their eyes, I see they're running too.

Now, I'm a jackass on a dinghy. This is not my beautiful house! This is not my beautiful wife!

LTER, the govt is supposed to serve a purpose, as is the constitution. The problem is the state has tried to do s many other things that it was not intended to do, nor is it capable of doing well. I believe it should exist to preserve our natural, or constituional rights. Unfortunately the constitution is meaningless to most people now days. If nancy pelosi can go before the country on tv and say this law was "passed in the spirit of our founders" and people applaude, we are probably past the point where we will live in a country where people underatand or care. I dont feel like believing the state has a purpose like the one ive outlined makes one a "statist" The constitution wasnt perfect, and has since been perverted to allow the current state to exist

LTER there is one hell of a lot more wrong with this government than there is right. Most people who are arguing about how bad Obamacare is aren't arguing that governments shouldn't build airports. We can have one without the other. Holy shit what did people do 10 years ago without Nannycare?

What I take issue with is that people use things like Obamacare to support blanket statements that the government should not exist. So instead of having a valid debate about what's wrong with Obamacare and how to fix it, we are supposed to just conclude that government is the problem. I agree our government is broken. I strongly disagree that we should abandon the concept of the Constitution and the government it created.

While I admit I have not read every word of this thread I do not recall EVER hearing anyone suggesting we should have no government. It just some of us extremist's demanding that our government be as constitutionally outlined and "limited" in its scope. You seem to feel there should be no limits as long as your agenda is being pursued. Of couse I'm sure that tune would promptly change if an evil conservative was in power.

'What is wrong with obamacare and how to fix it" is bullshit. It should be repealed and tossed into the trashbin of history. That law is a such a disgusting over reach of power, it enables the govt to pretty much make you buy anything. thanks john roberts. The idea that this law can be fixed is the wrong conversation to be having

'What is wrong with obamacare and how to fix it" is bullshit. It should be repealed and tossed into the trashbin of history. That law is a such a disgusting over reach of power, it enables the govt to pretty much make you buy anything. thanks john roberts. The idea that this law can be fixed is the wrong conversation to be having

"If believing in the Constitution makes me a statist (it does, since the Constitution by definition recognizes the value of an elected government or state),..."

All the Constitution is, is a document saying how a federal government will operate.

The other two are far more relevant to us, the "governed" as they describe what a central authority actually looks like when it goes off the rails and becomes tyranny (the Declaration of Independence describes this) and the Peoples rights that cannot be tread upon by that central authority in no uncertain terms (the Bill of Rights)...or this prized Constitution that you speak of, becomes null & void.

If I reject the Constitution, as it is now only being used under the "pretense of law" to usurp powers that were never granted or consented to it, by us, will the statists who hide behind it, brand me a trrist? Will the "king" send his forces against me and why? To protect me or him?

Collectivism also includes: pooling resources to build things we don't need, socializing costs for the benefit of those large corporations, favoring corporations and providing legal protection through regulation, and my favorite, taxes to pay interest on debt we would never have accumulated otherwise.

AND, it is done from the point of a gun. A thief may rob you once, but the government comes back everyday of your life.

Yes, the Constitution is worthless, it was incapable of forestalling tyranny. What, we can't have private courthouses? Oh yeah, we call it arbitration.

Blaming the Constitution for not forestalling tyranny is like blaming a gun that is used to kill someone. It's the citizens of the USA that rendered the Constitution ineffective; they deserve the blame and will collectively get what they deserve.

Bullshit. The courts and the State moved law into admiralty courts, putting law into contract terms to minimize the Constitution, that clearly states it is secondary to contracts. IRS courts don't even have juries. The Supreme court determined and legitimized unconstitutional rulings. Hell, Frankfurter was a zionist and we have all paid for it.

The Constitution failed to make itself supreme law of the land to protect the merchantilist founders of our country. It was not an oversight, it was purposeful.

That statement alone tells me that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And perhaps you failed to notice that the Constitution replaced a system of tyranny in another form of government -- one run by Kings who also had guns. The colonists were made to pay taxes and do all sorts of things for a government over which they had absolutely no control or say. Guys like you always rail against an elected government and fail to think about the true alternative is and what the world would look like if we eliminated it, when all you need to do is look at the entire history of the world for your answer.

Really? Then tell me why, because your opinion has zero value. Do you know what Admiralty law is? Contract law, Common law? and the differences? What a statist shill.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which included provisions for amendments, to take power from individual colonies and place it in the hands of the Colonist elite. If you actually read history, you would know taxes were a minor problem to the colonists. Bigger problem for the merchant class.

The entire history of the world is one of one type of tyranny being exchanged for another in the form of government. All States seek control and control, by definition, is the antithesis of liberty.

Yes, I know what Admiralty law is. It is the law that governs claims that arise on the high seas and other navigable waterways. Admiralty jurisdiction is not imposed and cannot be imposed on other disputes. And your question about "contract law, common law" suggests that you do not understand that most contract law is derived from the common law, meaning the law developed by courts over the years as opposed to specific laws passed by the General Assembly.

As for the colonists not being too bothered by taxes, do you know what the original tea party was about? Taxes imposed by an unelected King of England. Taxation without representation, to be precise. Look it up and get back to me.

The original Tea Party was actually not about taxation, it was about competition. They were protesting the monopoly the East India Compnay had on tea importation.

Time and time again it's apparent that you have no clue about your own history, and shouldn't be throwing your voice around as if you do. You need to read more, or at least from people that are not shills.

"The mistaken policy of the Stamp Act first disturbed this happy situation; but the flame thereby raised was soon extinguished by its repeal, and the old harmony restored, with all its concomitant advantage to our commerce. The subsequent act of another administration, which, not content with an established exclusion of foreign manufactures, began to make our own merchandise dearer to the consumers there, by heavy duties, revived it again; and combinations were entered into throughout the continent to stop trading with Britain till those duties should be repealed. All were accordingly repealed but one, the duty on tea. This was reserved (professedly so) as a standing claim and exercise of the right assumed by Parliament of laying such duties."

The Stamp act was repealed and harmony restored. The acrimony was lead by the merchants- not all colonists were merchants, in fact, few were.

When we stopped buying their merchandise, they imposed tariffs on American goods (tit for tat). When American agricultural products faced heavy duties, they could not sell for a profit. This is called a trade war.

The trade war was resolved except for a duty on tea. Now, where does Franklin lay any blame?

The institution of insurance brought admiralty law on to land in the form of liability law. Reading a definition in a book is not the same as understanding. When government granted limited liability, the entire system was changed. Contract law has nothing to do with common law- common law governs the behavior of kings, contract law is commercial. The Constitution is a common law instrument and clearly states it is secondary to contracts.

The tea party was a device to instigate rebellion and had nothing to do with taxes directly. You might want to read more than textbook history.

dear randcake- i am one of your biggest "silent greenies" out here, but- while the fellow might not be the most articulate spokesperson ... this notion of "admiralty law" is the deepest of all the rabbit holes, repleat with gold fringed flags, all caps corporations/constitutions/citizens and hookah smoking catapillars. rrrrgh .

I am a free prince, and I have as much >>>authority<<< to make war on the whole world as he who has a hundred sail of ships at sea and an army of 100,000 men in the field; and this myconscience tells me! But there is no arguing with such snivelling puppies, who allow superiors to kick them about deck at pleasure." - Captain Sam Bellamy

Only a matter of their own priorities & what their individual consciences will allow in pursuit of the object.

No, it's not. The deepest of the rabbit holes is the study of how the enslaved steadfastly deny their condition and pour derision on those who can actually see. Upton Sinclair knew ye, before you were born. George Orwell predicted your rise, and Aldous Huxley gave your world a name.

ok you finally got to it-- and just to help you along--how do you spell gov't?? CORRUPTION--

The entire history of the world is one of one type of tyranny being exchanged for another in the form of government. All States seek control and control, by definition, is the antithesis of liberty.

and so it's a bunch of control freak assholes with superiority complexes that don't have a life except to fuck up yours that join the petition gang and claim high moral ground legitimizing corersion and murder for gain in the name of them(AKA the State) and vola you have Gov't.

Actually once again you show how wrong you are. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which were infinitely better than what is going on now. The whole reason the Constitution was written was because Madison thought it would hinder what he called, "the violence of faction". Shame he didn't live long enough to see the War that kicked off later the next century to see he merely perpetrated it's eventuality.

Pooling resources would imply that those doing the pooling are the ones providing the liquidity as well as receiving the benefits. I don't think that is what is happening at all. Others are pooling OUR liquidity to provide benefits for others, while they skim a significant percentage for doing "good". And even if it were done for the benefit of all, it would still be a sham because of the corruption involved and the complete lack of transparency. A good faith effort is not dome behind closed doors.

There were always "governement" in human societies . For example, take the Bushmen, hunter/gatherer people, who lived in the Kalahari desert : apparently, they hadn't leaders . Now if you think those people hadn't a government you would be wrong . Everywhere you find rules, you have a government, whatever shape it takes; and the Bushmen definitely had rules . So what is the difference between them and us ? Each member of a group was part of the government, each one of them was part of the police in case of problem (not talking about children and differences between sex) . Also, each one of them knew practically the same things as the others, and every one of them knew all the other members . A full accountability garanteed by a full reciprocity .

It's an illusion to think that a human society has ever existed and could exist without government .

Now, it's clear that a Bushmen group is not the same kind of society as ours , and the Bushmen government is definitely not the same shape as ours .

Voluntary social agreements and mores are NOT government. Government implies the power of coercion and the rule of a minority over a majority. Completely different from your example. People have always lived with social organization and they had the ability to choose which organization they belonged to. Modern government removes choice and makes future generations responsible for the actons of their forebearers.

"Please show me a modern state where the government includes all the people in its' power structure."

Apparently, to you a government is, necessarily, some kind of particular entity that is separate from the community it governs and probably above it . And, in a modern society that may be more or less the case .

Now, to me, a human community operates according to customs/rules/laws . Those customs/rules/laws can be imposed by an external entity, or they can arise more or less spontaneously inside the community . They can be enforced by an external entity or they can be enforced by the community itself . The government is all that system of customs/rules/laws and the way they are enforced .

That doesn't necessarily imply the existence of a king, president or any other group of elected or unelected people external to the community. The governments we know today, are evolutions . But to me the fundamental principle at work here is customs/rules/laws and the way they are enforced to make the community operate relatively smoothly .

And yes, the wikipedia definition of a government is far from perfect.

I wasn't refering to coercion alone, I was refering to " the power of coercion and the rule of a minority over a majority ."

To take the example of the Bushmen : even though those people, apparently, hadn't

any leader (whatever that means), they obeyed their rules/laws . And when someone for a reason or another, broke some rule/law, the power of coercion was exercised by the community itself , not by some " minority above the community " .

I am familiar with the Xeer system and I am a fan, but it no longer exists. Further it is not a government as we commonly refer to them, but a clan based system of mores and laws. When a government was instituted in Somalia, the clan system devolved into violence, for the sake of getting the most money per clan.

Governing communities are a useful construct as long as there is no competition for resources. See Homo Habilis societies. However, we are well past that little garden of eden.

Did you ever read the Declaration of Independence? I'm guessing the answer is no. Here are a few lines about the value of government to get you started in your quest for knowledge and understanding of complex ideas:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Which led after 10 years to the Constitution. So what's your point? The Articles worked so well that the same people who ratified the Articles decided to change them and adopt the Constitution just a decade later?

Actually, most of the people that were chosen by their states to govern through the Articles were NOT included. You mght want to read about the first fourteen presidents and the articles legislative history.

ALL men are created equal? You mean: woman, slaves, indians, people that lacked wealth of a certain amount or land of a certain size and whom could afford a poll tax? Exactly how has our government secured these rights? The NDAA? Property and other direct taxes? Fees and permits to do anything?

In small governmental groups we are held accountable and to a relative higher standard. Today we are ruled by people we don't know, who in most cases are not elected or selected by us or anyone we know. Most people don't even know who their city councilman or school board members are. The is no ACCOUNTABILITY. That is the prime component of any system, and we have virtually none! How can we possibly expect this thing to work at all under these circumstances and our only recourse is it seems to make it even larger and more unaccountable, thinking that all it will take is a damn good website! They even fuck that up and NOBODY is held accountable...except of course us deniers who through mysterious ways have put a spell on the code writers. There was a first Lady quote that was often abused about drug abuse...just say no! Silly woman should have known we can't. We will never admit to a mistake and will always double down on every one. If I can just have one more fix...a good one, I can clear my head and figure this mess out, right? Those that believe government is the answer will never back down, as any failure simply proves to them that we just didn't go far enough or have the right person in the right place at the right time. Those on the left saw Obamacare as terribly flawed with its dependency on private insurance companies yet they still embraced it and defend it to this very day because it simply gives the government more power to do good, and they have always been willing to break a few eggs to make the omelet.

The socialist central planners always believe they are just one more big program away from utopia, or that some evil force (capitalism) is sabotaging their efforts to do all these wonderful things. They fail to see that, despite their so called good intentions, they are the problem. They are the coercive force inflicting misery on the very people they pretend they are helping. Eventually, the countless cycles of malinvestment, deficit spending, and misallocation of capital will catch them and the whole thing collapses. It's happening now. We are seeing collapse in front of our eyes, and it's getting worse everyday.

Did Government do that? Or did they contract with private firms to build those things? I'm thinking it was the latter.

Same thing with the Military. Weapons are actually produced by private contractors. The DOD lays out the requirements and oversees (with lots of help from Beltway bandits) and does some of the testing, but that's about it. The most competent Government agencies get lots of "help" from private contractors. In fact, the contractors do most of the real work while the bureaucrats "manage" the budgets and generally stay out of the fucking way.

Yes, the Military DOES successfully fight wars and is, perhaps, the thing Government does best. But you have to distinguish the Millitary from the rest of the Govenment. The price for failure in the Military is death--much worse than being fired. I will say that NASA also did a great job getting us to the moon.

So what does the Government really do?

1. Tax

2. Make and interpret laws (Legislative, Judical branches)

3. Make and execute policy (Executive branch bureaucrats)

4. Protect the nation (external)

5. Police the nation (internal)

6. Spend $$. This is increasingly the redistribution of wealth to keep the social peace.

Do you really not understand that taxes -- collectivism -- fund the hiring of the private contractors for the public works? You are making my point. A Marxist government does not hire private enterprise for private works. A Constitutional government does, and it's a good thing. If you notice, I'm arguing against someone who claims that there should be no government.

No, it funds a specific group of private contractors, destroying competition, through graft and influence. It also funds public government, which is not private at all. Further, since the contractors write the specifics, we get lousy work at high prices. It is NEVER a good thing. What part of a 680mm website that doesn't work do you not understand?

Actually, I'm more of a minarchist, but hey, when did intellectual precision matter to you?

The truth is black and white and government, as currently operating, "does not work". If in my business i lost money every year and every project I took on failed by any realistic measure, then I would have failed. If on the otherhand, I had the ability to print more money when I needed it or go back and charge my customers more for the service I had already promised and had failed to deliver, explaining to themn how difficult it was and how upset I am at our failure, I suppose I would not be completely a failure, as in that case as well as our government, the only true proof of failure is dismissal of those in charge, and they will never admit to failure. As we see with Obama, all failure is by unseen technocrats who because of their invisibility and insignificance cannot be readily identified, or the mysterious "technology" that we are all victims of, or we evil conservatives that through the power of our demented minds have cast a spell of failure over all that he attempts. Yes it is a failure. You know it. We all know it. Its just that people such as yourself still believe they can fix it, completely ignoring the cause of the failure in the first place. Simple unaccountable corrupt power.

It is my understanding that a suit has been filed to prevent Obamacare subsidies to anyone using the healthcare.gov site. Apparently the law was written to give subsidies to anyone in states that chose not to create their own exchanges. The IRS has reinterpreted that part of the ACA to allow subsidies to anyone, anywhere, hence the lawsuit. If the rule of law meant anything, this would be important, with the litigation conceivably reaching the SCOTUS. I wonder how Roberts would twist the ACA wording to permit the IRS interpretatio to stand. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/10/27/is-this-obamacares-biggest-kink-yet.aspx

Perhaps it was attacked by the Syrian Electronic Army in retaliation for Obama's threats.

Having followed this fiasco from a technical viewpoint as well as the more political ones, I've also heard that the design of the system may be creating excessive network traffic on its servers, in essence doing a DDoS attack on itself. Been there, accidentally done that myself.

We’ll skip the trinket thing…Manhattan…Indians…but it’s all about the diminishing return of false branding…in a sea of prohibition…a fool and his money…

Think about all the processing make-work energy that goes into manufactured food. The only way real food can cost more, to ensure the empire selection, is to bake real estate price inflation into the product. Funny, how manufactured food, real food, and restaurant food are all seeking the same price level, through regulation, now that the ponzi is decelerating.

The Fed has been pumping the top and the bottom credit ends to simulate wealth effect, $10 jobs chasing million dollar real estate, wiping out the middle class, with massive subsidies, far exceeding Big Ag, for real estate, paying for empty rooms the way it pays corporate farmers not to farm, destroying local agriculture, which sells out for the inflated money and against the associated taxation, losing everything in the next iteration with lost purchasing power, and left addicted to credit.

And where is the destination of FB Zuckerberg – real estate, auto and insurance inflation, trained F-ing seals in a zoo. Don’t make decisions based upon other people’s money and expect not to find your self in the empire noose, playing the extortion game for a living.

You tell your ‘friends’ you are going to Mendocino for the weekend, and you have to come back with good ‘stories’ and pictures to back them up. So you pay $250 for a substandard room with a view in an otherwise empty hotel, eat crappy food for $100 served up by druggies living in the adjacent ghetto, and buy a $50 souvenir sweatshirt that disappears in the washing machine. The standard of romance in this world is how much stupid money you can acquire and spend, on stupid, to impress stupid.

Like everything else in this supply-side economy, print-first-and-ask-questions-later, there is an abundance of over-priced clothing. Brands are rolled out with quality and price, which immediately head in the opposite directions with increasing credit. Buy some cheap Nike sweats for the label image and force Russell to increase price and reduce quality, and then complain.

If you want to see the middle class operate, and distribute clothing to reset the local market, set up a free clothing swap bank. The lower middle class, with no storage, drops off, and the upper middle class, with storage, picks up, long before the poor gets any opportunity, re-enforcing artificial scarcity.

Don’t give up and don’t throw anything away. Many use clothing and household linen as a source of material stock. As the upper class sees the stock grow regardless, it unloads its storage. You will have more clothing than you know what to do with and everyone will learn something about quality, as those who consistently trade up over time reboot a real market.

Food, shelter and clothing are substandard for a reason. Insecure people, chasing money, hoard, and the empire pays them to do so. You can still employ its money by discounting accordingly, or you can employ anything that is locally convenient to provide whatever feedback signal you want for your community.

In the long run, a complete empire cycle, it really doesn’t matter to labor. The herd always falls back into the churn pool. Investment is about positioning your self to ignore the short run, ignorance. Sedated people seek to avoid work with passive investment, losing metabolism, and grow contemptuous of work, which is just fine for labor, in the long run.

Quality at price requires time, which the empire rules out with prohibition regulation, chasing paper, getting further and further behind, throwing it away on peer pressure anxiety, competing to avoid work, faster than you get it. The Fed is printing into a vacuum because more and more people are ignoring it. And the Fed doesn’t want to taper because it could not isolate the next transmission in the process of QEinfinity. It got caught in a bluff.

Looking beyond your self, and your community, for change is like fixing your mirror because you do not like the reflection. An empire is a reflection, a shared perception, nothing more than an extension of gravity. Take it seriously at the cost of your identity.

The tourist economy is a dead end, for all things stupid, Disneyland to infinity, the smallest gear, scaled to consume everything, irrespective of perspective. Disneyland for Nazis, those competing to avoid nature with technology at all possible cost, is not an economy, but roll out whatever theory you like to make it so.

"sometimes you just have a better year than the President." Babe Ruth. Chicago was not built by "the Private Sector." Whether Government "does something right" is more often a function of what we want not what the Government wants. The problem now of course is that Government wants everything but it's got a huge debt...with nothing but bailouts on the way? That doesn't create jobs. I do agree "the private sector isn't stupid." it does respond to incentives...and disincentives. For the record I do no have a problem with those who think markets don't exist period. if that's the view being espoused these days then as far as I'm concerned "the bigger the bubble the better" cuz when asset inflations get this massive "that's called nobody's money." forget a bridge to sell...I've got an equity to sell at a very steep discount. you got a 5 billion dollar bridge to sell? I don't have a problem with that. But I'd put your best men on it. Now is not the time to dilly dally.

“There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.”

He belongs to the third, albeit I give him credit for at least being witty.

More than 90% of the time I see Machiavelli quoted around here - it's like Vizzini's use of "inconceivable" in the Princess Bride "I don't think it means what you think it means." People should really at least read Discourses to put the former in perspective, and then they might wonder just who pulled a Nancy Pelosi on Clement VII...

Well, first, I must say TLDR, because I couldn't get past the crap of the first paragraph or so.

the WRITER, if you can call him that, says:

Because despots always blame people, not systems.

and then not 2 sentences later says....

But that’s what they are, and he’s managed to blame everyone but himself.

I'm sorry, you may not like Obama, but it's not HIS fault there are code issues in the website. L

Then this writer says and backs up with the quote:

Then, of course, he lashed out at the critics and implicitly blamed them for technical failures.

“It’s time for folks to stop rooting for its failure, because hardworking, middle-class families are rooting for its success.”

Someone needs to explain to this guy that rooting one way or another does not cause a website to fail.

Um, NOPE, NEVER HAPPENED, NEVER. What Obama said was:

People can now get good insurance. People with preexisting conditions can now afford insurance. And if the launch of this website proves anything, it’s that people across the country don’t just need that security, they want that security. They want it. (Applause.) And in the meantime -- I’ve said many times -- I’m willing to work with anyone on any idea to make this law perform even better. But it’s time for folks to stop rooting for its failure, because hardworking, middle-class families are rooting for its success. (Applause.) And if the product is good, they're willing to be patient.

I am not a fan of Obama, democrats or replubicans, but this article is CRAP. Pure and simple CRAP.

You do realize that executives are held responsible for their product failures? Obama is the CEO. It is his responsibility to provide oversight, to check with his executives and monitor their work production.

Your example of a quote is verbatim of what you show Obama said. There is no contradiction. Further, Obama lied. People cannot get good insurance, because the website and other avenues don't work.

The article has issues with repetition and poor writing, but it is your defense that is crap.

Your brain is crap. We now have fewer choices of insurance policies to buy and are forced to purchase policies that cover things many do not want. People with preexisting conditions can never by "insurance" against those conditions by definition. Now, those who did not purchase insurance before incurring their condition receive health care ( a diffrent beast than insurance) subsidized by others. No doubt you consider yourself more moral and charitable than others and think it necessary to force others to conform to your choices. Like the celebrities who bemoan the plight of the poor while flying in private jets to luxury vacations. With the exception of Harry Chapin I know of no champion of the poor who has given up their wealth for the poor. So what if people wnt security? Let them work to provide that security. The idea that you should be provided some notion of security by having government goons take the fruit of my labors is pure and simple crap.

If you want the law to perform better abolish it. And abolish tax preference for insurance paid for by employers. And get the fed's out of the business of regulating health care and health insurance altogether.

How can the insurance industry justify their necessity if not for hopeless complexity that obscures the rent extraction. The "profit and loss system" is alive and well in Obamacare. Its just there are so many cronies grabbing for a piece of the pie that it has no chance for efficiency or transparency.

"The problem is the absence of two crucial things: the knowledge to assemble the resources properly and the means to make the economic assessment of the value of competitive resources. This is what happens when you eliminate the profit-and-loss system. You can throw massive resources at a problem with the end result being disappointing."